CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1960

Battista v. Potofsky

The defendant, an unincorporated association, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which denied its motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficiency, alleging fraud. The appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, which is an unincorporated association. Leave was granted for the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint.

FraudUnincorporated AssociationDismissalInsufficiency of PleadingAuthorizationRatificationCivil PracticeAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. ADJ2941365 (BGN 0131581)
Regular
May 22, 2019

JOCELYN JOHNSON vs. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, KEMPER NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jocelyn Johnson's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision that found no fraud in the procurement of earlier findings and awards. Johnson alleged an incorrect injury date, insufficient medical evaluation, and denial of due process. The Board found that Johnson failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud, as the issues raised could and should have been litigated in prior proceedings or appeals. Therefore, good cause did not exist to reopen the 1996 and 2002 findings and awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFraudDate of InjuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorDue ProcessLabor Code Section 5803Continuing JurisdictionExtrinsic Fraud
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Post

The case involves defendants Constance G. Post and Wayne Charles, convicted of mail fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy, who challenged their convictions post-trial following the Supreme Court's Skilling decision. Post, a Mount Vernon city official, engaged in undisclosed self-dealing to benefit Charles through various schemes involving city contracts and HUD funds. The court found that erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud, which did not limit it to bribes or kickbacks, constituted a Skilling error. Given the intertwined presentation of valid pecuniary fraud and invalid honest services fraud theories, the court could not guarantee the jury's verdict was solely based on a permissible theory. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the mail fraud and conspiracy counts is granted, while Charles's false statements conviction remains due to a lack of prejudicial spillover.

Mail fraudHonest services fraudConspiracyPublic corruptionUndisclosed self-dealingSkilling v. United StatesJury instructionsHarmless error reviewFederal criminal lawPost-conviction motion
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

People v. Niver

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, welfare fraud in the fourth degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, all stemming from her failure to report income while receiving public assistance benefits. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her speedy trial motion, the legal sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, particularly regarding the value of property wrongfully taken and intent to defraud, and several evidentiary rulings by the County Court. The court found no speedy trial violation, concluding that only 173 days were chargeable to the People. The court also determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions, noting witness testimony on overpayment exceeding $1,000 and the defendant's failure to disclose workers' compensation income. The various evidentiary rulings, including those related to the Molineux application and business records, were upheld. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Grand LarcenyWelfare FraudFalse Instrument for FilingSpeedy Trial ViolationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceIntent to DefraudEvidentiary RulingsMolineux ApplicationBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. ADJ2342373 (LAO 0512482) ADJ3525697 (LAO 0534774)
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ALICE BRYANT vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER

The applicant seeks reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order continuing a hearing. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because the order of continuance was not a final order, and thus not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900(a). Any request to reconsider the 1998 order of dismissal would be untimely as it was filed nearly 17 years late, and such dismissals can generally only be set aside for extrinsic fraud or mistake. The applicant was cautioned about potential sanctions for frivolous filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of ContinuanceDismissal for Lack of ProsecutionFinal OrderTimelinessLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5903Supplemental PetitionExtrinsic Fraud
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Schlesinger

The government sought a preliminary order of forfeiture against Nat Sehlesinger and Goodmark Industries, Inc. for over $21 million, alleging assets were proceeds of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The defendants were convicted following a jury trial in May 2005, based on schemes involving fraudulent insurance claims for fires at their business property and defrauding creditors through shell corporations. The court determined that the Wallabout Street Property, which housed the business, facilitated the money laundering offense. It also ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) permits criminal forfeiture for mail and wire fraud even without 'special circumstances,' acting as a 'gap filler' where civil forfeiture is authorized. Consequently, the court issued a preliminary order of forfeiture for specific sums related to money laundering, insurance fraud proceeds, and creditor fraud proceeds.

Criminal ForfeitureMail FraudWire FraudMoney LaunderingInsurance FraudCreditor FraudAsset ForfeitureWallabout Street PropertyFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)18 U.S.C. § 982
References
43
Case No. ADJ2523054 (POM 2523054) ADJ8607480 ADJ9435881
Regular
Feb 18, 2020

JOSE SALAZAR vs. JAMES JONES COMPANY, INC.; MUELLER GROUP C/O SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior administrative law judge's decision. The Board held that the applicant failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud or mistake to set aside a 2004 stipulated award, as the petition was filed over fifteen years after the award, well beyond the five-year statutory limit. The applicant's claim of not understanding the settlement documents, even if accepted, did not show he was prevented from presenting his case or that he diligently pursued relief. Therefore, the applicant's petition to set aside the stipulated award was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpetition for reconsiderationextrinsic fraudstipulated awardset asideLabor Code section 5803Labor Code section 5804five-year periodgood causeequitable relief
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 756 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational